Perhaps we should not count the amount of times and actually attempt to understand what this is about?
In Jan 2010 the US joined with 152 other Countries to endorse a US Arms Treaty Resolution to draft a blueprint for enactment in 2012.
Originally there was no doubt at that time that it would be approved.
Foreign ministers of countries such as UK, France, Germany and Sweden wanted the treaty to cover all types of conventional weapons like small arms, light weapons and munitions, amongst other things.
They also wanted to include strong provisions for human rights, international humanitarian law and sustainable development.
On June 30, 130 Republican House members sent a letter to President Obama and Secretary Clinton arguing that the proposed treaty infringes on the “fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms”. The letter charges that “…the U.N.’s actions to date indicate that the ATT is likely to pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy, and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights.” The lawmakers adamantly insist that the U.S. Government has no right to support a treaty that violates the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Democrats have accused Republicans of making this a political issue, maintaining that the treaty poses no Second Amendment threat. Others, such as former U.N. ambassador John Bolton, caution gun owners to take this initiative seriously. He believes that the U.N. “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”
That was back in 2012.
Further reading:
http://citizenreviewonline.org/the-u...t-of-the-deal/
Here we are in 2013.
Quote:
|
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
|
2nd Amendment
Perhaps the words of: kissing goodbye seem a little far-fetched, but certainly infringe would be a good choice.